This dissertation examines the criticisms and justifications surrounding the administrative jurisdiction in France, questioning whether it should be abolished.
Extract
[...] Since then, the coexistence of two jurisdictional orders in France has continued to be questioned or at least questioned. In fact, the stakes are important: they affect the entire judicial organization, the overhaul of the block of constitutionalism and the codes, the principle of equal treatment and the protection of public liberties. The question that arises in this case is the following: Should the administrative jurisdiction be abolished, in other words, should the dual jurisdictional system in France be brought to an end? [...]
[...] - In all cases, the administrative judge and the judicial judge are two protective judges of rights and freedoms. [...]
[...] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Dissertation: Should we abolish administrative jurisdiction? In an opinion published on the Court of Cassation's website on July Bertrand LOUVEL questions the dualism of jurisdictions : "What justification can we advance today in favor of the existence of two separate orders of jurisdiction? Neither the corporatism on both sides, nor the difficulties in the formation of judges ( . ) nor the intellectual interest presented by the debates before the Tribunal of Conflicts. The former president of the Court of Cassation then shows a certain skepticism about the existence of two orders of jurisdiction. [...]
[...] A slow and heavy administrative jurisdiction - Critics regarding the complexity of the system: the dualism creates difficulties according to Jean Marc SAUVÉ "for the litigant who struggles to identify the competent judge, but also for society given the lengthening of procedures that this duality is likely to induce The suppression of this dualism would lead to simplicity, speed (end of incessant back-and-forth between the two orders + redundancy). This slowness is amplified in the case of prejudicial questions. - According to Bertrand LOUVEL, this system is "one of the most difficult secrets on the path to access to justice and the intelligibility of our institutions. Justice must be accessible and institutions/decisions must be made intelligible, otherwise the rights of litigants are trampled. The administrative jurisdiction is criticized. [...]
[...] A radical separation of executive and judicial powers involving certain collaboration - A radical separation: the judicial judge must not "trouble in any way, the operations of administrative bodies, nor cite administrators before them for reason of their function according to article 13 of the law of August 16- + the judicial judge cannot "know acts of administration according to the decree of 16 Fructidor, year III. - However, in the presence of conflicts, the Council of State intervenes. The latter is responsible for ensuring coherence and simplicity in terms of the distribution of competences between the two orders. A collaboration is necessary between the two orders, as well as a confrontation of practices, methods, and experiences. [...]
